C89和C99之间的区别？ [英] Difference between C89 and C99?

问题描述

我已经看过N869.txt文件和我可以找到的关于

C99的文件。有没有什么能全面描述C89和C99之间的差异？
？我想编写尽可能便携的代码。


谢谢，

杰森。

I''ve seen the document N869.txt and the copy I could find talks about
C99. Is there anything that comprehensively describes the difference
between C89 and C99? I''d like to write code to be as portable as possible.

Thanks,
Jason.

推荐答案

在文章< d5 ********** @ newshost.mot.com> ;, Jason Curl

< j _ **** ****@motorola.com>写道

In article <d5**********@newshost.mot.com>, Jason Curl
<j_********@motorola.com> writes

我看过文件N869.txt和我可以找到关于
C99的副本。有什么能全面描述C89和C99之间的区别吗？我想编写尽可能便携的代码。

谢谢，Jason。

I''ve seen the document N869.txt and the copy I could find talks about
C99. Is there anything that comprehensively describes the difference
between C89 and C99? I''d like to write code to be as portable as possible.

Thanks,
Jason.

K& R第一版是1970年代的原始C描述

它现在已经过时，因为它是C语言规范。


K& R 2nd Ed pub 1988他们的书更新到C89

C89是1989年的ANSI标准

C90是ISO版本和第一个国际C标准

这三个应该是一样的。 K& R在ANSI面板上生成[ANSI] C89并且成为ISO-C90


已经有各种修正案和TC''在93,4,5等


1999年有一个新版本的ISO-C标准。 C99。

问题在于，尽管有2个TC到C99，但它没有符合

的编译器。大多数是在C90和C99之间的一部分。


如果你想写便携式CI将使用C99与A1和TC的它

是在哪里（AFAIK）大多数编译器都在。当然这取决于你写的是什么？b $ b你想要什么样的便携性。为了便携性

可能有更重要的问题而不是坚持ISO-C


BTW

你不应该使用任何N ***文件因为这些是委员会工作

文件因此不准确。它们已被

公布的标准所取代，并且在评论后不会包含任何/部分/全部更改（如果有的话）

。


如果您想使用该标准，请购买该标准。使用N ***文件就像试图使用字典编写法律文件一样，这可能会导致

任意数量的拼写错误和错误定义
it。


/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ Chris Hills Staffs England / \ / \ / \ / \ / \

/ \ / \ / ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \ / \ /

\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \\ \\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /

K&R 1st ed was the original C description from the 1970''s
It is now obsolete as regards being the C language specification.

K&R 2nd Ed pub 1988 their book update to C89
C89 is an ANSI standard from dated 1989
C90 is the ISO version and the first International C standard
These three should be the same. K&R were on the ANSI panel that
produced [ANSI] C89 and that became ISO-C90

There have been various Amendments and TC''s in 93,4,5 etc

In 1999 there was a new version of the ISO-C standard. C99.
The problem is that despite 2 TC''s to C99 there are no conforming
compilers for it. Most are part way between C90 and C99.

If you want to write portable C I would use C99 with A1 and the TC''s It
is where (AFAIK) most of the compilers are at. Of course it depends what
you are writing and what sort of portability you want. For portability
there could be far more important issues than sticking to ISO-C

BTW
You should not be using any N*** document as these are committee working
documents and therefore not accurate. They have been superseded by the
published standard and will not include any/some/all changes (if any)
after the reviews.

Buy the standard if you want to work to it. Using an N*** document is
like trying to write a legal document using a dictionary which may have
an arbitrary number of spelling mistakes and incorrect definitions in
it.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jason Curl< j _ ******** @ motorola.com>写道：

Jason Curl <j_********@motorola.com> wrote:

我看过N869.txt文件和我可以找到的关于
C99的副本。有什么能全面描述C89和C99之间的区别吗？我想编写尽可能便携的代码。

I''ve seen the document N869.txt and the copy I could find talks about
C99. Is there anything that comprehensively describes the difference
between C89 and C99? I''d like to write code to be as portable as possible.

C99前言中的新功能简要列表

标准。该清单转载于委员会的网站：


< http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/newinc9x.htm> ;


-Larry Jones


所有女孩都应该被送到冥王星 - 这就是我所说的。 - Calvin

There''s a brief listing of the new features in the Foreword of the C99
standard. The list is reproduced on the committee''s web site:

<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/newinc9x.htm>

-Larry Jones

All girls should be shipped to Pluto--that''s what I say. -- Calvin

Chris Hills写道：

Chris Hills wrote:

.... snip ...
BTW 您不应该使用任何N ***文件，因为这些是委员会的工作文件，因此不准确。它们已被已发布的标准取代，并且在审核后不会包含任何/部分/全部更改（如果有）。

如果您想工作，请购买标准它。使用N ***
文档就像尝试使用
字典编写法律文档一样，其中可能包含任意数量的拼写错误和不正确的定义。

.... snip ...
BTW
You should not be using any N*** document as these are committee
working documents and therefore not accurate. They have been
superseded by the published standard and will not include
any/some/all changes (if any) after the reviews.

Buy the standard if you want to work to it. Using an N***
document is like trying to write a legal document using a
dictionary which may have an arbitrary number of spelling
mistakes and incorrect definitions in it.

但是N869对于大多数用途来说已经足够了，只要你愿意承认失败。它具有很大的优势

有一个文本版本，实际标准仍然无法提供
。可以使用

普通工具搜索和操作文本版本。为什么ISO / ANSI拒绝发布官方文本

版本是无法理解的。


-

如果你想要要通过groups.google.com发布后续内容，请不要使用

损坏的回复链接在文章的底部。点击

" show options"在文章的顶部，然后点击

回复在文章标题的底部。 - Keith Thompson

However N869 is quite adequate for most purposes, as long as you
are willing to recognize the failings. It has the great advantage
of having a text version, which the actual standard still fails to
supply. A text version can be searched and manipulated with
ordinary tools. Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don''t use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

这篇关于C89和C99之间的区别？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！